AHC: UK National Soccer Team

I imagine if organised sports got their first big break in France or elsewhere rather than Britain it's more likely there would be one UK team.
 

kernals12

Banned
The US and Canada share soccer, basketball, hockey, and baseball leagues. It doesn't seem like it should be hard for Scotland and England to do likewise.
 

kernals12

Banned
I imagine if organised sports got their first big break in France or elsewhere rather than Britain it's more likely there would be one UK team.
That's gonna be a problem. The reason England got organized sports first is the industrial revolution which gave people disposable income and leisure for the first time.
 
probably not. I imagine you'd have one massacre of an entire team and that'd be it.

Maybe a poor choice of words. But true.

Realistically there is one premier league in the UK as is: the Premier League. The number of teams in the other leagues that would be in the current PL is basically one.

So they'd set up their own local leagues. And then we're back to square one.
 
The US and Canada share soccer, basketball, hockey, and baseball leagues. It doesn't seem like it should be hard for Scotland and England to do likewise.

No the US has sports franchises to cover media markets. Soccer is a club game and the media market for the EPL is the entire planet. Or possibly beyond.
 
As for a united UK team. They'd have Ramsey and Bale which helps, they'd be good but then again, they're good on paper already and they still find a way to not make it far at tornuaments.
 
This definitely needs a pre-1900 POD.

BTW, the situation in rugby union is that England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland also have their separate teams (Ireland represents both North and South). They periodically play as a united British Isles team every four years or so (the "Lions Tours"). As with association football, it developed this way because the Home Countries have very different identities, and (more pragmatically) because a unified side only makes sense when there is someone external to play against. Once English and Scottish teams were established, with the associated rivalry, merging them was a non-starter.
 
What's the difference between clubs and franchises?
Off the top of my head, clubs are generally established at a local level on an ad hoc basis during the late nineteenth and early twentieth century.

The most successful clubs weren't founded with the intention of becoming a major brand, they came by it by success on the pitch that saw them promoted to that level. As such, the Premier League isn't planned in the same sense that American Leagues are. That is how we have ended up with a situation where towns like Burnley and Watford have PL teams, but Birmingham, England's second city, does not.

So a club system means that the PL can't plan the teams that compete in it in order to maximise it's reach to regional markets, as happens under a franchising system. As such, it is harder to expand into different countries that already have their own leagues.
 

Devvy

Donor
The Premier League is just a rebranded "Division 1" and is fully integrated in to the English league system. Promotion/relegation is bloody difficult with multiple leagues below you as the below leagues have to start varying in size or the region they cover (hence Conference North and South having some teams which switch between to balance the numbers). I can't see how you can get a unified UK football system in post-1900; the regional identities are too strong, and the will to set up local versions so not dominated by England is too strong.

It's also power politics; why would the head of the Scottish FA give up being Chief Executive to be subsumed in to a British FA, which would be dominated by the English? They'd also lose their separate voice in maintaining the football rule book as part of IFAB.
 
It seems to me most of the replies miss the point of the original poster. Rather than worrying about Scottish teams playing in England etc, what would a National UK Team look like? Would George Best have got into the England team of 1966? A late 1960s side featuring Jennings, Best, Moore, Bremner, Ron Davies, Ball, Charlton? In the early 1970s, imagine a team with Terry Hennessy, Ron Davies, Billy Bremner, Alan Ball and Martin Chivers? An 1980s UK side with Kenny Dalglish and Ian Rush up front, Graeme Souness and Kevin Sheedy (born in Wales) in midfield and Alan Hansen in defence, with Neville Southall in goal? To be frank, I can't think of any N. Ireland or Scottish players who'd get in a current UK side, while the star would be Wales' Gareth Bale. Aaron Ramsey and possibly Ben Davies would probably be the only other non-English players in the team.
 

kernals12

Banned
Aston Villa dwarfs any of the Irish clubs, in support numbers, money, facilities. There's no way any of the NI teams could fund a modern competitive campaign.
If they become part of the premier league, their visibility would skyrocket and therefore they'd get more money and attract better players.
 

Devvy

Donor
It seems to me most of the replies miss the point of the original poster. Rather than worrying about Scottish teams playing in England etc, what would a National UK Team look like? Would George Best have got into the England team of 1966? A late 1960s side featuring Jennings, Best, Moore, Bremner, Ron Davies, Ball, Charlton? In the early 1970s, imagine a team with Terry Hennessy, Ron Davies, Billy Bremner, Alan Ball and Martin Chivers? An 1980s UK side with Kenny Dalglish and Ian Rush up front, Graeme Souness and Kevin Sheedy (born in Wales) in midfield and Alan Hansen in defence, with Neville Southall in goal? To be frank, I can't think of any N. Ireland or Scottish players who'd get in a current UK side, while the star would be Wales' Gareth Bale. Aaron Ramsey and possibly Ben Davies would probably be the only other non-English players in the team.

Well the original post ends with

So how can we have a single UK National Team and a single UK Premier League?

So most of the discussion around getting Scottish teams in to the same league as English (and the odd few Welsh ones) is bang on target.

Granted about the nation teams though, but your post perfectly illustrates why it's not going to happen; a UK side would basically mean just ditching the Wales/Scotland/NI teams as any UK-team will be thoroughly dominated by the English. Also, I can't see any way post-1900 that you could get rid of them, it may seem they are "only ceremonial" countries to the OP, but they are incredible important primary identities to many, if not most, of the people living there alongside being British.

The special Olympics 2012 squad had 5 non-English players in a squad of 18. Illustrates it perfectly.

EDIT ADD:

If they become part of the premier league, their visibility would skyrocket and therefore they'd get more money and attract better players.

Unlikely; the West Midlands alone has around 2.5m people, compared to the whole of the RoI at 4.7m. You need to have decent local support to provide the base income for the squad; people buying tickets, corporate hospitality, replica kits, etc - and also to provide the atmosphere for the team to win in.

Their visibility would rocket, they'd get a bit of money, and then get relegated.

Personally, the only way I see all UK clubs playing together is in a European Super League (which would obviously not be English-dominated!).

On a side note, during the whole Wimbledon fiasco of the 1990/2000s, Sam Hamann investigated moving to Dublin as a Premier League side. It was rejected by the RoI Leagues, UEFA, and most other PL teams. Wimbledon were about the only team who would see it as an improvement, having a fan following smaller then some conference teams (and I say that as a former Wimbledon fan from the days of Vinnie Jones...).
 
Last edited:

kernals12

Banned
The Premier League is just a rebranded "Division 1" and is fully integrated in to the English league system. Promotion/relegation is bloody difficult with multiple leagues below you as the below leagues have to start varying in size or the region they cover (hence Conference North and South having some teams which switch between to balance the numbers). I can't see how you can get a unified UK football system in post-1900; the regional identities are too strong, and the will to set up local versions so not dominated by England is too strong.

It's also power politics; why would the head of the Scottish FA give up being Chief Executive to be subsumed in to a British FA, which would be dominated by the English? They'd also lose their separate voice in maintaining the football rule book as part of IFAB.
It would mean a lot more money for the Scottish FA. That's how every corporate merger is supposed to go.
 
This actually requires a pre-1900 PoD. And historically speaking the four Home Nations have been a unified part of the United Kingdom, all four are historically separate.

To be honest, I think the separate home nation teams are a result of the nature of the UK as a "country of countries", a situation which seems to be quite rare in the world as most other comparable examples have broken up or had local identities erased. I don't really see how it's possible to avoid this situation without making the UK more unified to try and erase national differences. The UK Government has normally avoided interfering in private affairs, which is how the national FAs started out.
.

I don't think it's that rare of a situation. Many states were formed through unions of originally separate countries. From the standpoint of international law, the UK has been a single state since 1707. It's just an odd historical quirk that in a few sports like football (soccer), rugby and cricket, the four parts of the UK compete separately.

I imagine if organised sports got their first big break in France or elsewhere rather than Britain it's more likely there would be one UK team.

In a number of sports - tennis, basketball, cycling and athletics (almost every sport at the Olympic Games)- there is only one UK team.
 

Devvy

Donor
I don't think it's really that rare of a situation. Many states were formed through unions of originally separate countries. From the standpoint of international law, the UK has been a single state since 1707. It's just an odd historical quirk that in a few sports like football, rugby and cricket, the four parts of the UK compete separately.

Most other countries identify solely as the country. The Swedes are almost entirely Swedish. The Germans are almost entirely German (bar some comments about Bavaria!). Italians are Italian even with some regional anxieties. 45% of Scotland does not feel British if the referendum is anything to go by. The level of national identity is way different in the UK, and is probably only comparable to Spain for which Catalonia would probably try to enter FIFA/UEFA themselves if they were allowed. The 4 Home Nations only get in to FIFA/UEFA via grandfathering rights.

In a number of sports - tennis, basketball, cycling and athletics - there is only one UK team.

Tennis and Cycling are basically solo sports, so the point of a "team" is much reduced. Basketball is a niche sport which hardly anyone watches in the UK (comparatively speaking), much less people get excited about. Athletics is likewise niche bar the Olympics, and even then, you can cheer your local Scottish/Welsh/NI athletes because much of them are solo disciplines. Cast your mind back to Alex Salmond and his "Scot-lympians" which he wanted Scotland to support instead of the wider Team GB.
 
Unlikely; the West Midlands alone has around 2.5m people, compared to the whole of the RoI at 4.7m. You need to have decent local support to provide the base income for the squad; people buying tickets, corporate hospitality, replica kits, etc - and also to provide the atmosphere for the team to win in.

Their visibility would rocket, they'd get a bit of money, and then get relegated.

Personally, the only way I see all UK clubs playing together is in a European Super League (which would obviously not be English-dominated!).

On a side note, during the whole Wimbledon fiasco of the 1990/2000s, Sam Hamann investigated moving to Dublin as a Premier League side. It was rejected by the RoI Leagues, UEFA, and most other PL teams. Wimbledon were about the only team who would see it as an improvement, having a fan following smaller then some conference teams (and I say that as a former Wimbledon fan from the days of Vinnie Jones...).

Ah just to be clear, you should be looking at the NI population, not the ROI, in terms of Football they are split and NI's IFA is the historical FA while the Republic's FAI is post Independence. So it's even worse as NI's population is even smaller at about 1.8m currently (and with all the historic issues).
And yeah I can see why everyone rejected Wimbledon going to Dublin, frankly I still have zero idea what they were smoking to suggest such a move (don't even know if they had that big a crowd following in Ireland), where would they have played even?
 
Top